Roy Blunt – Hot Airhttp://hotair.com
The world’s first, full-service conservative Internet broadcast networkFri, 09 Dec 2016 15:41:16 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.116302432Senate watch: PA, IN, MO, NC, NH. Four out of five so farhttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/08/senate-watch-pennsylvania-indiana-missouri-north-carolina-new-hampshire/
Tue, 08 Nov 2016 23:01:43 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=393077110:05 in the morning Wednesday: I’ll confess that I had to throw in the towel at midnight… because I’m old. Also because I still had to be up at zero dark thirty for the morning shift here on the site. Some of these races just took too long to call and one of them is still up in the air. In the end, in addition to Todd Young and Richard Burr, we wound up going four for four in the decided races. Roy Blunt scored a 49-46 victory in Missouri and Pat Toomey pulled out a slender win over McGinty by roughly 100K votes. The only one we don’t know about yet is New Hampshire. Kelly Ayotte is currently trailing Maggie Hassan but the difference is only 870 votes out of more than 690K cast for the two of them. We’ll probably do a separate thread when that one is finally called but we’re probably going to have to wait for a recount.

In any event, it was a big night for the GOP in the upper chamber and we will retain the majority without needing a tie breaker from Mike Pence no matter how the last couple of races fall.

12:05: We’re up to 75% reporting in Missouri now and while it’s still too close to call, Roy Blunt has opened up a 51-45 lead which will be hard to overcome. Jason Kander had a lot of baggage to overcome and he might not do it.

10:55: Mark another one up for the GOP. Burr has been projected as the winner in North Carolina. Congrats, Senator!

10:36: Things in New Hampshire are not settled yet, but the earlier lead of Maggie Hassan has evaporated with nearly half of the vote recorded. Kelly Ayotte is up 49-46 with a late surge. Too soon to call, but the signs are hopeful for the GOP.

10:16: Down in Missouri they are still being painfully slow to count votes. But a shift is underway. Roy Blunt has moved into an encouraging lead 54-41. There is something of an air of momentum building.

9:28: Swinging back to North Carolina it’s going back and forth like a ping pong ball. Richard Burr is back in the lead, but it’s a slim margin just like in the POTUS race. It’s 50-46 but there’s still half the race to go.

8:45: We have our first closer! Indiana has been called for Todd Young. Currently stands at 55-41 with about half the votes counted. Congratulations Senator!

8:28: In North Carolina it’s a seesaw similar to Florida’s presidential race. Richard Burr has fallen behind slightly and Deborah Ross has something to be happy about… at least for now. It’s 49-47 but we’ve only got 9% of the vote.

8:04:We’re starting to get some votes in from New Hampshire which closed more than an hour ago, but they’re slow up there. With barely 5% of the vote in, Maggie Hassan is up 55-40. At this point nobody is calling any of these closely contested races.

7:45: We have our first update from North Carolina and while it’s also still early, Richard Burr is off to an early lead with a 53-43 margin. It’s less than 450K votes cast so far so there’s no popping of champagne corks yet.

7:30: More votes coming in from Indiana and while closing a bit, Todd Young is holding on to a 56-38 lead. He’s got to like the early numbers.

6:45: Our first results are in from Indiana but it’s far too slim to base anything on. With 1% of the vote in, Todd Young jumped out to a 60-34 lead, but that’s less than 60K votes. We should find out more in the next hour.

Original article continues below:

I realize that most of the attention is focused on the big ticket race at the top, but regardless of who moves into the West Wing in January we’re going to need to keep control of the Senate. That’s far from a sure thing so there are a few close races in particular that I want to keep an eye on. We’ll be updating this post at the top as results come in, but let’s take a quick look at the races of interest. NBC News provided a fairly comprehensive look at the nine closest ones, but here are the five which I’m watching most closely.

Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey (R) v Katie McGinty (D)

Our Lucy and the Football center of activity every four years is once again being contested. There’s nothing in the polls which say that Trump won’t do anything but come close here but his fortunes might deliver some huge fallout for Senator Pat Toomey. Elected in the 2010 GOP wave, this was always going to be a tough race. Toomey has been cagey as to whether or not he would vote for Trump himself but he certainly hasn’t endorsed him. That doesn’t seem to be helping his chances because the latest RCP average has him down two points, inside the margin of error. If Trump can somehow drive enough Republicans to the polls and Toomey attracts some ticket splitters he could still pull this one out.

Indiana: Todd Young (R) v Evan Bayh (D)

This is another tough race for the GOP. This seat is open this year, but Bayh held it before (along with being Governor) and came into the race with huge name recognition, a lot of cash in his war chest and decent popularity numbers. But this race has shifted a lot in the polls since early October when Todd Young was being essentially shut out. Young supported Trump while being critical of some of the stories which got The Donald in trouble this fall. What once looked like a safe bet for the Democrats to steal one back from the GOP could still be saved if things break our way tonight.

Missouri: Roy Blunt (R) v Jason Kander (D)

I’ve written about this race multiple times and it continues to fascinate me. State Attorney General Jason Kander has a lot of baggage to answer for, from being a Kansas native to some sketchy campaign contributions he’s taken. Still, he’s kept himself within striking distance of Blunt. If we somehow manage to lose this one it could be a very bad night for the GOP indeed.

North Carolina: Richard Burr (R) v Deborah Ross (D)

As I wrote about previously, this race is a dead heat in the polls and it’s a bit of a head scratcher as to why. Burr is a two term Senator with solid numbers and wasn’t expected to have much trouble. In fact, he didn’t really start campaigning in earnest until September when Ross began to close on him. It’s a fair bet that this may be an actual case of the Trump effect since Burr has said he will be voting for the nominee and that race is also tied here. It may come down to which presidential candidate prevails and Burr may wind up riding those coattails to either victory or defeat.

New Hampshire: Kelly Ayotte (R) v Maggie Hassan (D)

Senator Kelly Ayotte is another alumnus from the class of 2010 and since this is New Hampshire it was always going to be a challenging race. Add in the fact that she’s facing off against a sitting Governor and you’ve got a recipe for a pick by the Democrats. But this one is polling so close, switching back and forth over the fall, that I wouldn’t put a lot of money on it either way. Ayotte has never completely distanced herself from Trump but she’s not embraced him either. That may be ticking off some of Trump’s diehard supporters in the state. For her part, Hassan has been tied at the hip to Hillary Clinton in a hard hitting advertising campaign. The last polls showed Ayotte with a lead, but it was far too small to take to the bank. This one may go late into the evening.

]]>3930771Emerson battleground polls: Trump up in AZ, MO, GA; Hillary up 3 in COhttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/02/emerson-battleground-polls-trump-az-mo-ga-hillary-3-co/
Wed, 02 Nov 2016 20:01:30 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3929898In the final days of the 2016 cycle, it appears that voters have begun coming home. Emerson College came out of the gate with its most recent surveys of four battleground states, and finds that Donald Trump has taken three traditionally Republican states off the table. Hillary Clinton has retaken the lead in one, but it’s within the margin of error:

Emerson College polls released today show Donald Trump holding a substantial lead over Hillary Clinton in two of the four states polled (Georgia and Missouri) while he and Clinton have both flipped a state where they previously trailed.

In Georgia, Trump is winning 51% to 42%, and in Missouri he has opened up a 15-point advantage (52% to 37%), almost doubling the 8-point margin he had in a mid-October Emerson poll. Trump has also flipped Arizona to his column. Clinton led 44% to 42% in the first week of October but now trails 47% to 43%. Georgia and Arizona are two of the traditionally Red states that Democrats were hoping to turn Blue this year.

In just about the only good news for Clinton in this batch of polls, she has turned the tables in Colorado. She previously trailed the GOP businessman by 4 points (42% to 48%) but now has a 3-point edge, 44% to 41%.

Except … that’s not really good news. The difference is actually 2.3 points, not three, as Emerson rounded up the 43.5/41.2 result for its press release. That’s within the margin of error in a state that Barack Obama won by five points in 2012. (Their sample almost exactly matches the 2012 results on the question of prior vote four years ago.) The two candidates have almost identical favorability ratings in Colorado, and this survey was taken mostly before Friday’s announcement by James Comey of the renewed investigation into Hillary’s e-mails.

This result falls right into line with recent polling in Colorado. The RCP average has narrowed considerably over October, and now Hillary leads by 2.4 points (including the Emerson result). At the end of September and into mid-October, three polls had Hillary up by double digits. Emerson’s Trump +4 in early September looked like an outlier, but this result matches up well with the polling consensus. FiveThirtyEight gives Emerson a slight house lean to the GOP, but only by a point.

The other states in these “battleground” polls should have stayed Republican in normal circumstances anyway, so it looks more like a reversion to form. Perhaps more worrisome for the GOP is the Senate race in Missouri, a seat they desperately need Roy Blunt to hold. In the Show-Me State, Hillary has a much lower favorability rating (33/64) than Trump (46/51), and Trump has a 15.4-point lead, but Blunt’s in a dead heat with Jason Kander at 45.2%. Two other pollsters have the race at Blunt +1, which isn’t terribly good news for an incumbent. If Trump wins big in MO and Blunt falls, that will certainly have some people second-guessing the GOP.

Hillary Clinton hasn’t run a TV ad in Colorado since July, but on Monday her campaign said it planned buy to commercials in Denver, Colorado Springs and Grand Junction for the final week of the campaign.

Asked about the timing, her Colorado staff said the new ads were not in response to the latest controversy over Clinton’s e-mails. Rather, they said the intent is to help candidates such as Morgan Carroll and Gail Schwartz, two Colorado Democrats looking to unseat Republican U.S. Reps. Mike Coffman and Scott Tipton, respectively.

“We have a robust lead in ballots returned, but Colorado Democrats have competitive races to win across the state. And Hillary Clinton is committed to electing progressives up and down the ballot to make a real difference for families in Colorado,” said Emmy Ruiz, Clinton’s Colorado director, in a statement.

Well, maybe. It looks more like a need to shore up a state that has suddenly become competitive, but their mileage may vary.

]]>3929898Jason Kander writes a big check to clear those dodgy donationshttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/02/jason-kander-writes-big-check-clear-dodgy-donations/
Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:31:25 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3929893Sunshine remains the best disinfectant when it comes to cleaning up politics and we seem to be seeing another example of that in the Missouri Senate race. Just this weekend we joined in with numerous media outlets talking about some large campaign contributions which Democrat Jason Kander took from a law firm in Boston. Plenty of Democrats stop at the offices of the Thornton law firm to pick up checks, but the firm was in the habit of returning those donations to their partners in the form of a “bonus” (which the firm is now saying wasn’t a bonus at all).

Having been revealed as one of the participants in this scheme, Kander was forced to whip out the check book this week and cough up the funds. (Kansas City Star)

Missouri Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jason Kander’s campaign said Monday it would write a $25,000 check to the U.S. Treasury after reports that a law firm it received contributions from handed out bonuses that may have illegally obscured the source of those donations.

Kander received $25,000 from nine members of the Thornton law firm on May 14, 2015, all on the same day. Data compiled by the Center for Responsive politics shows contributions from Thornton employees represented the fourth largest group of contributors to Kander’s run for the Senate.

Over the weekend, a story in The Boston Globe detailed a pattern at the Thornton firm of bonuses given to its lawyers timed with political contributions made to a number of prominent Democrats and Democratic campaign committees.

We already saw other Democrats returning the money, including Russ Feingold and Governor Maggie Hassan. Why it took Kander this long may remain a mystery, but the reason for the firm’s interest in him is becoming more clear. As this latest chapter in the story reveals, the Thornton law firm has been making a fine living for some time seeking clients for a class action lawsuit representing sufferers of mesothelioma, contracted from exposure to asbestos.

The firm was apparently unhappy when the government, under George W. Bush among others, began working to get these victims signed up for a national trust fund providing them with compensation. That took money out of the pockets of the law firm. By what I’m sure is another coincidence, Kander received another $117,000 from employees of Simmons Hanly Conroy. It’s a different law firm which specializes in, wait for it… mesothelioma cases.

What has Kander promised these firms in exchange for such generous donations? This story gets more interesting by the day.

]]>3929893Kander found taking in cash from firm with sketchy “donations for bonuses” schemehttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/31/kander-found-taking-cash-firm-sketchy-donations-bonuses-scheme/
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:01:28 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3929497Jason Kander, the Kansas carpetbagger currently locked in a tight race to unseat Roy Blunt in the Missouri Senate race, has been found to have taken significant campaign contributions from the Thornton Law Firm in Boston. That’s been a regular stop for Democrats looking for money, but they’ve drawn some unwanted attention for the way they handle their finances. It turns out that partners at Thornton have been donating to large numbers of Democrats and then “coincidentally” receiving bonuses in the exact same amount shortly after the checks clear. The Missouri GOP explains how the money piled up.

Jason Kander, who has taken millions of dollars from lobbyists and special interests in his Senate campaign, raked in tens of thousands of dollars in campaign cash through this illegal scheme. Records show that Jason Kander collected $25,000 from Thornton Law Firm employees on a single day in May 2015. Jason Kander and his wife, Diana, are both lawyers.

Experts say the Thornton Law Firm’s contributions to Jason Kander are illegal and allowed the firm to donate money in excess of campaign finance limits to Jason Kander.

Daniel Petalas, an attorney who served as acting general counsel of the FEC until September, told the Boston Globe that reimbursing donors is “among the most serious campaign violations, in the view of both the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.”

Tester, a massive, jovial man who raises livestock on his family farm, was more compelling than many of the other breakfast guests, all of them political candidates the firm hoped would defend the interests of trial attorneys. But the drill was basically the same. The personal injury lawyers listened politely for a few minutes, then returned to their offices. And Tester walked away with $26,400 in checks.

But a striking thing happened the day Tester visited in 2010. Partner David C. Strouss received a payment from the firm labeled as a “bonus” that exactly equaled his $2,400 contribution to Tester’s campaign, the maximum allowed. A few days later, partner Garrett Bradley — until recently the House assistant majority leader on Beacon Hill — got a bonus, too, exactly matching his $2,400 gift to Tester.

After having been caught by the press, the law firm apparently didn’t stop the practice… they simply apologized for any confusing wording. You see, those weren’t “bonuses” the partners were receiving. They claimed the payments came the partners’ share of the firm’s equity which they would have gotten back when they left the firm anyway. They did admit they shouldn’t have called them bonuses though. I have no idea how a firm gets away with something like that, but apparently it’s possible.

Kander is far from the only Democrat to have tapped this particular cash cow, but some of the others who did so at least had the decency to give the money back. Those included Russ Feingold and Governor Maggie Hassan. If Kander doesn’t want to follow suit and admit that he’s been siphoning money off of a scheme which is at least morally dubious if not outright illegal, Missouri’s voters probably have all they need to know about his ethics.

]]>3929497Video: Jason Kander accuses Roy Blunt of being just like… Jason Kanderhttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/24/video-jason-kander-accuses-roy-blunt-just-like-jason-kander/
Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:01:47 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3928421The Missouri Senate race is heating up, with the polls showing a very tight contest in the final weeks. It’s at a time like this when the gloves tend to come off and the candidates begin throwing everything at the wall to see what might stick. That seems to be the case with Democratic Secretary of State Jason Kander who is seeking to replace Republican Roy Blunt. This past week they’ve tossed up a new advertising campaign which is certainly hard hitting, but the specifics may leave Mr. Kander a bit embarrassed if anyone takes the time to examine them. Let’s take a look at the ad.

You’ll notice that Kander’s campaign is hitting two points here. The first is that Roy Blunt has some lobbyists in his family. True enough, but keep in mind that this charge is being made by Jason Kander, a man who is married to Diana Kander… a “recovering lobbyist” herself. There’s an old saying about throwing stones in glass houses here, but I’ll leave that one for your examination.

The more interesting part of the ad comes when the speaker points out that Roy Blunt has a home inside the Beltway, declaring that, “He doesn’t even live in Missouri anymore.” Wait a minute… did I just hear that correctly? Kander is hitting Roy Blunt for not living in Missouri? You may recall that we recently took at look at Jason Kander’s colorful history of residency. The man is from Kansas. He was born in Kansas. He was raised and went to school in Kansas. His wife (the aforementioned aspiring lobbyist) is from Kansas. His parents are from Kansas and spent more of their lives there than in Missouri. Jason Kander is a carpetbagger from Kansas and he’s pitching a story claiming that Roy Blunt doesn’t live there?

And let’s entertain this ridiculous, hypocritical charge for a moment. Let’s say Roy Blunt really “doesn’t live in Missouri anymore” as Kander’s ad claims. Jason Kander is the Secretary of State in Missouri. As part of his job he certifies the state election ballots based on the required candidate qualifications for the positions they seek. Does this mean that he’s been certifying Roy Blunt while knowing that he’s not a resident? (That’s a requirement to be a Senator in case you missed that part.) If so, he’s not very good at his job.

By way of contrast, Roy Blunt was born in Niangua, Missouri. He got his masters degree from Missouri State University. He taught history at Southwest Baptist University (also in Missouri). And yes, he has a home in the DC area… because he works there for much of of the year. Are we to assume that Mr. Kander will commute back and forth to Washington each day from his home state?

This is a truly remarkable attack for the challenger to attempt. Who did Jason Kander hire to run his campaign… the Keystone Cops?

]]>3928421MO Dem Senate candidate and famous anti-discrimination advocate being sued for discriminationhttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/11/mo-dem-senate-candidate-famous-anti-discrimination-advocate-sued-discrimination/
Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:41:57 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3926555In Missouri, the Democrats are running Jason Kander against Roy Blunt for their Senate seat. Kander looked like a great choice on paper, being the Missouri Secretary of State and former member of the legislature. So far he’s made a spirited run in what is being described as one of the closest Senate races in the country. Kander looks like a natural choice for progressives and social justice types too. He prides himself on his fight against discrimination. In fact, when he first took his current office he made headlines by announcing that LGBT employees would be afforded the same protections under his tenure. (KCRU)

Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander announced Thursday that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees in his office will now be protected under the office’s nondiscrimination policy. Sexual orientation and gender identity will be added to the list of other identifiers protected from discrimination and harassment.

“This is the right thing to do. Hiring and advancement decisions should be about an employee’s performance and their potential, and I think we can all agree on that,” Kander said. “An employee’s sexual orientation should have no bearing on those types of decisions.”

That sounds like great news, Jason. But one thing which didn’t seem to attract quite as much attention is that Kander is actually being sued in an anti-discrimination suit from one of his employees. Roumen Manolov is an employee of the Missouri Secretary of State office in the Securities Division. Roumen is a naturalized citizen of Bulgarian descent with extensive qualifications in his field and was hired as Deputy Chief Counsel for the Securities Division in 2008. After receiving nothing but glowing reviews, Roumen applied for several promotions, but received none of them, though he was allegedly the most qualified applicant. In 2014 the Secretary of State’s office posted an opening for a new Chief Registration Counsel / Director of Examination. Roumen applied for this position as well and was allegedly the only applicant with the qualifications listed in the posting.

Instead of being awarded the job, the Secretary of State’s office pulled the listing and then replaced it with an entirely newly created position to do the same thing, but with fewer qualifications required. That position was then given to someone else (who happened to be a native Missourian) and Roumen was instead given a different “promotion” which was described as a consolation prize, carrying fewer responsibilities and less of a salary increase.

The upshot of this is that Roumen Manolov brought suit against Andrew Hartnett (the Commissioner of Securities and Roumen’s boss) and Jason Kander. Here’s the front page of the filing.

The plaintiff charges that he has been discriminated against because of his national origin and suffered both financial loss and distress. This case is still in progress as you can see by doing a search on case number 15AC-CC00324 here.

Both parties will need to have their day in court to resolve it, but given what a fan of anti-discrimination protection Secretary Kander is as he seeks the office of United States Senator, he might want to comment on how this particular employment situation spun so badly out of control.

]]>3926555Jason Kander, another carpetbagging Dem Senate candidate, tries to paper over his pasthttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/01/jason-kander-another-carpetbagging-dem-senate-candidate-tries-paper-past/
Thu, 01 Sep 2016 13:21:26 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3920591When the Missouri Senate primary dust settled last month we found out that the Democrats would be putting up Secretary of State Jason Kander in an attempt to oust Roy Blunt from his seat. Missouri is traditionally considered a safe seat for the GOP, but in the Year of the Trump, you just never know what’s going to happen. Local news has been reporting that the polls are tighter than expected and Blunt could have a fight on his hands, a charge which the Senator doesn’t seem terribly concerned over. (KCUR News)

FiveThirtyEight, the popular site of statistical stories, says polling showing Hillary Clinton within just two points of Donald Trump may make Missouri one of the states swinging from red to blue this year.

Incumbent Republican Sen. Roy Blunt is holding a slim lead over Secretary of State Jason Kander, a Democrat. Blunt was in Kansas City Thursday and dismissed concerns of a toss-up.

“I think I’ve got a record that Missourians can look at and feel good about,” he said. “But I think Trump’s going to carry the state and I think that’s a good thing.”

Well, if Mr. Kander is going to be taking a serious run at this thing the voters should probably get up to speed on his history. Jason is making a point of reminding everyone of his deep seated Missouri roots and his love of his home state. Right on his Wikipedi page he leads off his bio by describing himself as a fifth-generation Missourian. He features the same claim on his campaign web site. Heck, you can watch him bragging about his deep Missouri roots on video. And I suppose that might be technically true depending on how you read an Ancestry.com chart, but a close look at his history shows that it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

Where was he actually born? Let’s ask the Associated Press. Oops! Looks like Jason is actually from Kansas.

But nobody can be blamed for the circumstances of their birth. I’m sure the family moved over to Missouri in short order, right? Nope. Kander was raised in Kansas and attended school there. (See page 15 in that document.) Jason Kander voted in Kansas and got married in Kansas. And as for that multi-generation thing, both Jason and his parents have both lived longer in Kansas than in Missouri. If you doubt that, just consider the fact that his father ran for mayor in Shawnee, Kansas.

Why might voters care? Well, in addition to the usual annoyance many of us feel with carpetbaggers in general, Kansas and Missouri have, shall we say… a bit of history when it comes to rivalry, sometimes breaking out into outright warfare. So, Missouri… do you really want a Kansas boy holding your Senate seat? Jason Kander is a carpetbagger who has been feathering his own nest based on claims of being a born and bred Missourian. He’s not. End of story.

]]>3920591Great news. Republicans look at eliminating filibuster for SCOTUS nomineeshttp://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/24/great-news-republicans-look-at-eliminating-filibuster-for-scotus-nominees/
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/24/great-news-republicans-look-at-eliminating-filibuster-for-scotus-nominees/#commentsSat, 24 Jan 2015 16:31:51 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3109410I was expecting some action out of the new Congress, but I really never saw this one coming. A group of Republican Senators led by Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) are floating the idea of further extending the nuclear option enacted by the Democrats to take filibusters off the table when considering nominees to the Supreme Court. Clearly wiser heads than myself have been able to determine why this is such a great idea, because I’m not seeing it at the moment.

Top Senate Republicans are considering gutting the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees — a move that could yield big rewards for whichever party controls the White House and Senate after 2016.

The move, still in its early stages, reflects growing GOP confidence in its electoral prospects next year. But it could also have a major immediate impact if a justice such as 81-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down, making it far easier for President Barack Obama to get a replacement confirmed…

The 60-vote filibuster threshold would remain for legislation.

The Politico story seems to focus on whether or not they’ll be able to get most of the Republicans to go along with it, and then persuade a sufficient number of Democrats to join them to reach the magic number of 67. Doesn’t that sound just a bit backward? The Democrats are looking at two years in the minority when the President may very well have to nominate a new SCOTUS justice. They should be doing back flips over the idea, since they can often get at least a few Republicans to support a judicial nomination by the President, and they will only need four or five to seal the deal.

I suppose that the analysis from the authors has some merit when they interpret this as a sign of growing GOP confidence in its electoral prospects, but holy moley… that’s a lot of confidence. I wouldn’t say that 2016 is in the bag for the Republicans in any way, shape or form yet. And besides the White House, it’s still entirely possible (though perhaps not likely) that the Democrats could even take back control of the Senate with a big enough Hillary wave. (Again, I’m not saying that will happen, but we would prove that we’ve foolishly learned nothing from recent history if we ruled out the possibility entirely.) If that happens, the Democrats have already demonstrated that they are willing to change the rules as best suits their needs, and they would switch them back and forth on whichever schedule best facilitates their advantage.

If the GOP scraps the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees now, it benefits nobody except Barack Obama and his allies, making if much easier for him to rail through a far more liberal choice than would otherwise be possible. Then, if the GOP manages to lose the White House again and the margin in the Senate remains small, the Democrats will get at least four more years of benefit out of it. If the Republicans do take the White House but somehow lose ground (and control) in the Senate, the Democrats can simply put the filibuster back in place in January of 2017, and what possible evidence of good will exists to suggest that they wouldn’t make such a hypocritical move?

I suppose I’ll wait to hear a more full explanation from Alexander and friends if this proposal actually picks up steam. But for the moment, it just doesn’t make any sense.

]]>http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/24/great-news-republicans-look-at-eliminating-filibuster-for-scotus-nominees/feed/1223109410Durbin: Why, I think ObamaCare is on its way to being a success!http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/21/durbin-why-i-think-obamacare-is-on-its-way-to-being-a-success/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/21/durbin-why-i-think-obamacare-is-on-its-way-to-being-a-success/#commentsMon, 21 Oct 2013 12:41:19 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=283749Let’s see if we can figure this out. Do most “substantial success[es]” require a “tech surge” after a three-and-a-half year rollout? Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) seems to believe so. He told Chris Wallace yesterday on Fox News Sunday that the rollout itself might have its issues, but that the program is succeeding, and uses the web traffic as evidence. Wallace isn’t buying it (via NRO):

A top Senate Democrat said on Sunday that ObamaCare is “on its way to be a substantial success.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber, defended the rollout of the healthcare reform law in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” while noting that “it’s off to a rough start with the website.” …

On Saturday evening, the administration announced that 476,000 people had successfully applied for insurance through the government site. However, the Department of Health and Human Services did not disclose precisely how many of those applicants were successfully signed up for insurance.

Wallace jumped all over Durbin for using the traffic and the sign-up figures, which have nothing to do with actual purchases of insurance plans. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) wasn’t buying it either:

“I don’t think this plan will work because it’s based on a couple of premises that won’t work,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) replied.

“But when you can’t even put together the package to sign up, that shows how big a job it is for the federal government to manage 16 percent of the economy and people’s health insurance plans. It’s not where the federal government should be.”

“All they had to do instead of shutting the government down was just let this happen and that would have made their case to them.”

Arguably true, but the shutdown will be forgotten soon enough. This disaster will continue to unfold all year long.

]]>http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/21/durbin-why-i-think-obamacare-is-on-its-way-to-being-a-success/feed/41283749Blunt: We have the votes to delay Hagel confirmation; Update: McCain won’t commit to opposing filibuster?http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/13/blunt-we-have-the-votes-to-delay-hagel-confirmation/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/13/blunt-we-have-the-votes-to-delay-hagel-confirmation/#commentsWed, 13 Feb 2013 17:01:38 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=244314Can Republicans delay the confirmation of Chuck Hagel — at least long enough to force the White House to provide more information on Barack Obama’s actions on the night of the Benghazi attack, along with more transparency on Hagel’s speeches over the last few years? Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) says yes, and that eventually the Senate will get the information that it seeks:

The GOP, which controls 45 votes in the Senate, would need 41 votes to block former Sen. Hagel from hitting the 60-vote threshold that some Republicans have threatened.

“I don’t think we’ll move forward for a few days on that,” Blunt said at POLITICO’s post-State of the Union event. “And there’s been requests for more information. I think ultimately Senator Hagel will provide that information.”

In particular, Republicans on the Armed Services Committee have asked for more detailed financial disclosures from Hagel – a demand dismissed by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee’s chairman.

That’s not the only area in which Republicans want more disclosure. Lindsey Graham threatened holds on both Hagel and John Brennan in order to force the White House to answer questions that arose in last week’s hearings on the Benghazi terrorist attack. Leon Panetta testified publicly that neither Obama nor anyone at the White House bothered to check back with him after his initial briefing on the matter, and no one knows whether Obama attempted to intervene with the Libyan government to free up US resources that were being detained at the airport. The last leverage the Senate has on those questions are the Brennan and Hagel confirmations, and that may have convinced enough Republicans to sign onto a delaying tactic that will not amount to a full filibuster on a final confirmation vote.

Jen Rubin thinks that John McCain might have left the door open to that strategy:

The big news, though, was largely missed by casual observers: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) left the door open, ever so slightly but nevertheless deliberately, to hold up Hagel’s nomination:

The key portion of McCain’s remarks was this: “I’m somewhat disturbed to hear that today there’s two more speeches that [Hagel] had not reported, that maybe just surfaced. And yet at the same time I believe he has complied. I do not believe that we should move forward with his nomination until questions are answered that Senator Graham and Senator Ayotte and I have asked to be answered.”

That last reference is to a letter he and Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sent to the president today, asking a single question: “During the eight hours the U.S. mission was under attack, did you personally speak with any officials in the Libyan government to request assistance for our American personnel?”

McCain and other senators understand this is effectively the last opportunity to wrangle information out of the White House on Benghazi. Once Hagel is confirmed, the administration will have no reason to cooperate with congressional oversight committees at all. Holding up the final floor vote on Hagel is the only arrow left in their quiver.

And later, it became clear that Hagel had not disclosed all of his speeches, as he supposedly asserted:

An aide to a senior Republican senator has told Right Turn that there are some 12 speeches over 5 years that Chuck Hagel did not disclose to the committee, including one to the Arab-American Discrimination Committee Convention in 2008. In one speech before the Israel Policy forum, Hagel proclaimed:” The Syrian-Israeli peace is a logical next piece in how this plays out. It’s a logical next piece.”

He also gave one of the most full-throated defenses of “linkage” we’ve heard[.]

And even Hagel’s supporters acknowledge that his confirmation has so far been a disater:

Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said at POLITICO’s event that Hagel has a “significant challenge” ahead to build his credibility both at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, particularly following Hagel’s rocky confirmation hearing last month.

“It hurt,” Smith said of Hagel’s performance. “I can’t lie about that. it was not generally a very good performance. I don’t think it’s totally reflective of the man; [he] obviously, has a very distinguished career both in the military and the government.”

Perhaps a delay will allow for a wiser choice to replace Hagel.

Update: Politico asked McCain whether he will vote to allow Hagel’s confirmation to come to the floor — and gets a different answer than McCain was offering last week:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is backing away from his no-filibuster stance on the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary.

After saying just days ago that Senate Republicans shouldn’t filibuster Hagel’s nod, McCain now says he hasn’t made up his mind about whether he would vote to end debate and allow a floor vote on the former Nebraska senator’s confirmation.

McCain is now waiting to see whether the White House will respond to a letter requesting more information about Obama’s “actions and orders” the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“We are hoping to get an answer to a simple question,” McCain told POLITICO.

That’s a bad sign for Hagel and the White House. If McCain switches to the filibuster, they won’t get either of these confirmations through the Senate.